Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity

quote:

---

Their MEANING TO THE BAKER IS EQUIVALENT. I could not care less what their meaning to YOU is.

---

If the baker is sufficiently callous, perhaps. However that is less relevant than the fact that the baker IS discriminating against gays BECAUSE they are gays.

There is nothing about the cake that is gay specific already. It's a wedding cake, that's all, and the only thing that makes it for a gay wedding is the fact that it is ordered for that purpose. That is what engages the baker's conscience. There is no need to put a couple of male dolls on it, or female, if it is known to be for a gay wedding that's already the problem. As has been said umpteen times on this thread already.What is this need to smear the Christian bakers who are only acting on their understanding of God's requirement?: You can punish them to a pulp if you want, fine them into the poorhouse, drive them out of business, but what's the point of all this insinuating lying garbage against them/us? I 'wouldn't accept" this or that? What's the need of this kind of insinuating lie?

Well now you're just making things up. You weren't even replying to me when you mentioned The Guardian article. You weren't replying to anyone. Your Message 552 was a general reply titled, "The Main Points," and one of your main points was that The Guardian article, which was about cake writing, "brought out the important point." I'm pretty much saying the same thing as other people. The two are not the same thing. PaulK is drawing the right distinctions, I won't repeat his arguments again. No, you haven't answered. What you mean is that you have no answer. You seem to care about meaning not at all.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Move misplaced quotation mark.

Lots of miscommunication, my fault OK.The situations are the same as far as the baker's conscience is concerned and that is thatl.

bla bla blaHow about writing Tatchell and finding out what he thinks?

Funny. You reject the proposed solution outright - demonstrating an important difference between the iced slogan and the wedding cake - and then complain that Modulus correctly predicted your reaction - calling that prediction "insinuating lying garbage". How can it be "insinuating lying garbage" if it is true ?

It isn't important to me. You are the one who wants to claim his support. The fact remains that the cited article deals only with icing words on a cake and the reasoning does not stretch to covering outright refusal to supply a wedding cake. THAT is my point and it needs no support but the content of the article itself.

God's requirement? There's no such requirement. There is no Lordly edict to discriminate against people for their lifestyle. God loves everyone. Jesus (a carpenter) would gladly make shelves for the gay couple. Were he a baker he would bake them a cake. Jesus never asked Mary Magdalene to repent. Try this passage on for size: Jesus had no problem eating with sinners, but your baker won't even sell the gays a cake. A little WWJD is needed in your philosophy, because it sure isn't evident much.--Percy

No, that isn't that. They're both things that bother your baker's conscience, but they are not the same thing, not in reality and not in the baker's mind. That's because it is obvious to anyone that caking writing and cake baking are not same thing, not even close. The implications of writing a specific message must obviously run far deeper then the mere sale of a generic cake.--Percy

As usual you are making garbage out of the point.Jesus was always kind to sinners. What Jesus never did was treat sinners as not sinners, or advocate disobeying God's laws. He might do all kinds of things for gays, but He would not support their marrying because that is a violation of God's law.

As far as the baker's conscience goes, both the writing on the cake, and the wedding cake in the context defined, affirm the legitimacy of gay marriage, which is THE reason for refusing either of them.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

For ALL have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.Jesus treated EVERYBODY as sinners - i.e. He treated everybody equally.

Yes we are all sinners, every human being. Yes Jesus treated us all as sinners, because we are. As I said He never treated sin as not sin. He died to save us from sin. If sin weren't sin He wouldn't have needed to die for us. "He loved us while we were yet sinners." He loves us but He doesn't say we aren't sinners. Gays are sinners, He wouldn't say they aren't, which is essentially what some "Christian" churches are doing. He would tell them as He tells us all: Repent and believe and be saved.To do anything to appear to treat gay marriage as legitimate, which is clearly against God's law of marriage, would itself be unkind and unloving, because anything that encourages sin in people encourages their eternal misery. Always the kind thing is to call it sin, refuse to serve it, and advise repentance and belief in Christ for salvation. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : too many typos

Sinners are sinners. Some "Christian" churches are singling out gays and putting themselves above them. You are advocating that "Christians" should deliberately break the law when all they would have to do is get a different job. If your eye offends you, pluck it out.

Gays are singling themselves out and Christians are responding to their provocations.The Christian businesses have been there for years and along comes this law that contradicts basic Christian belief. They are just going along minding their own business when suddenly they are faced with choosing between their faith and their livelihood, as Tangle put it some posts back. So your solution is for them to give up their livelihood which has been established for years. Perhaps it will thrill you to know that that is probably what is going to happen in many cases, unjust though it is.Oh and our eye doesn't offend us because we're in the right. The offensive eye is sin and you among others should pluck yours out.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.